The top pro-abortion Democrat behind a Supreme Court filing asking the nation’s highest court to force Hobby Lobby to obey the HHS mandate under Obamacare said in the Senate floor that the Christian company is hiding behind religious freedom in order to deny women birth control.

Hobby Lobby is challenging the mandate in court because it doesn’t want to be forced to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for its employees. The Supreme Court will hear the Hobby Lobby case against the HHS Mandate later this month.

Murray called the case one “where a secular corporation, and its shareholders, are trying to get in between a woman and her health.”

“And just like the many attempts before this case, there are those out there who would like the American public to believe that this conversation is anything BUT an attack on women’s health care. To them, it’s a debate about ‘freedom,’ except of course the freedom for women to access care,” she said.

“It’s no different than when we are told that attacks on abortion rights aren’t an infringement on a women’s right to choose – they’re about religion or state’s rights. Or when we’re told that restricting emergency contraception isn’t about limiting women’s ability to make our own family planning decisions – it’s about protecting pharmacists. Or like just last week, when an Alaska state senator said he didn’t think there was a compelling reason for the government to ‘finance other people’s recreation’ in reference to contraception coverage in health care.”

Murray said “the truth is this is about contraception, this is an attempt to limit a women’s ability to access care, this is about women.”
Murray said she hopes the court would not allow “for-profit, secular, corporations or their shareholders to deny female employees’ access to comprehensive women’s health care, under the guise of a ‘religious exemption.’”

“It’s as if we’re saying that because you are a CEO or shareholder in a corporation, your rights are more important than your employees who happen to be women,” she said. “That is a slippery slope that could lead to employers cutting off coverage for childhood immunizations—if they object to the idea…pre-natal care for children born to unmarried parents—if they thought that was wrong…or blocking an employee’s ability to access HIV treatment.”

Hobby Lobby’s brief calls on two centuries of high court rulings to counter the government’s reasoning that the Greens’ rights as individuals cannot be exercised through their family-owned corporation. The brief insists that this freedom does not “turn[] on [the Company’s] tax status,” and further states that the Administration cannot “divide and conquer” the Greens’ religious liberties from those of Hobby Lobby to make those rights “simply vanish.”

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take upSebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions. This is good news to the Green family, who own the store.

In July, a federal court granted Hobby Lobby a preliminary injunction against the HHS abortion-drug mandate. The injunction prevented the Obama administration from enforcing the mandate against the Christian company, but the Obama administration appealed that ruling recently. The government’s appeal makes it highly likely that the Supreme Court will decide the issue in the upcoming term.

Hobby Lobby asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review its case and decide whether the Green family will be required to provide and pay for life-terminating drugs and devices in violation of their religious beliefs, according to an email from its attorneys to LifeNews.

“Hobby Lobby’s case raises important questions about who can enjoy religious freedom,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead lawyer for Hobby Lobby. “Right now, some courts recognize the rights of business owners like the Green family, and others do not. Religious freedom is too important to be left to chance. The Supreme Court should take this case and protect religious freedom for the Green family and Hobby Lobby.”

Duncan said last June the Christian-owned and operated business won a major victory before the en banc 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the government’s argument that the Green family and their family-owned businesses, Hobby Lobby and a Christian bookstore chain named Mardel, could not legally exercise religion.

The court further said the businesses were likely to win their challenge to the HHS mandate. Since then, courts in other parts of the country have ruled differently, setting up a conflict that only the Supreme Court can resolve.

The Court will consider the government’s petition and Hobby Lobby’s response next month. If the petition is granted, the case would be argued and decided before the end of the Court’s term in June.

“The United States government is taking the remarkable position that private individuals lose their religious freedom when they make a living,” said Duncan. “We’re confident that the Supreme Court will reject the government’s extreme position and hold that religious liberty is for everyone—including people who run a business.”

After the appeals court ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton issued a preliminary injunction and stayed the case until Oct. 1 to give the Obama administration time to appeal the decision.

In an opinion read from the bench, the court said, “There is a substantial public interest in ensuring that no individual or corporation has their legs cut out from under them while these difficult issues are resolved.”

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.

Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

@AmericanPastors

The American Pastors Network, its members, staff, associates, and affiliates claim no responsibility for the overall content, products, or representations contained within any outside website links. The inclusion of a link is not necessarily intended as an endorsement of all products or material found on that link.